I harken back to the days before FDR, but realize that he was only giving the people what they wanted at that time. I must admit that when I said, "we are a different nation" I was speaking of my (and much of Europe's) perspective of us.

You make a good point that we are much farther down the road of (whatever the correct term is) than I normally perceive.

Location: Chicago (Over two miles from Wrigley Field. Fuck the Cubs. Fuck them in their smarmy goat-hole.)

Posts: 26,317

Total Cats: 1,915

Look at the constitutions of the European nations which were part of the Axis powers, as they were all re-written comparatively recently. Germany and Italy are good starting points (both of the following are translated into English):

The first section of each reads very much like the US Bill of Rights (which, by contrast, was enacted after the authorship and ratification of the original US constitution.) Lots of stuff about freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion, the inviolate nature of the home and its contents, separation of church and state, due process, etc. They just left out the part about guns, and added some extra stuff about how it's important that children be protected and such.

In general, the constitutions of both of these countries speak first and foremost of the rights and liberties of the people, and then discuss the organization and operation of the government second.

In the US, our constitution is all about the structure of the government. The main body of the US constitution doesn't mention the people at all (except for how to try them for crimes), and the idea that the people have rights and liberties was tacked onto the end two years later.

At the time, the general idea was that the people, or states, would hold all rights and powers and the federal government would only be allowed to exercise the power specifically conferred in the various Articles. There was a lot of fear that listing rights would end up limiting rights to those listed.

In hindsight, it seems like the original fear about listing rights was well founded. OTOH, history has also shown that you had darn well better list something, or you'll end up with nothing. European countries started from the "nothing" camp that existed for most people in the Middle Ages, so listing rights was natural. Those Constitutions haven't been in place very long compared to ours. I hope they are able to persist and evolve. It's interesting to watch the current turmoil around Japan's Constitution as it faces an emergent China and rogue N. Korea.

I my mind, rights are distinct from entitlements. Rights should be thought of as things that you are born with and that a government should, for the most part, not be able to take away (the exception being criminal proceedings). Entitlements are things conferred by government (hence the name includes "title"). Under our system, both of these still end up subject to the democratic process, but because rights are enshrined in a Constitution they are much more persistent. Entitlements are conferred and stripped by laws, which can change as quickly as administrations. Confusion of the two is basically a power-grab.

Lat week, at the house, we were talking about the fact that the BOR was added later. Kind of interesting in light of how important those things were to the founders, and how many present day people seem to Be more familiar with the BOR than other parts.

Location: Chicago (Over two miles from Wrigley Field. Fuck the Cubs. Fuck them in their smarmy goat-hole.)

Posts: 26,317

Total Cats: 1,915

Quote:

Originally Posted by fooger03

What I don't have a right to is "Healthcare paid for by someone else who didn't have a choice in the matter".

So let's talk about that for a minute.

'round these parts, folks like to talk about due process of law. We've had threads about civil forfeiture, gun control, police homicides, no-fly lists, and all sorts of other extra-judicial affairs. And every time, a certain (and predictable) set of folks chime in saying "You can't do that without due process!"

Anyhoo, here's the Sixth Amendment, which is where due process gets established in the US legal system:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Now, the 6th is an awesome amendment. It separates the US from places like North Korea, Arghanistan, and Mississippi, inasmuch as recognizing that you can't just go hangin' folks without givin' em the what-for. Let's look at three specific clauses within this amendment.

1: ... by an impartial jury...

I'm sure most of us have been called to jury duty in the past, and some have no doubt been impaneled. Sitting in a jury box isn't exactly the most fun you can have with your pants on, and while most of us would probably rather that we, specifically, not be forced to sit in a courtroom all day against our will, we seem to recognize that, on the whole, it's best that someone be forced to do it. Or, more specifically, we recognize that the right of an accused criminal to a jury trial is sufficiently important that it justifies depriving the actual jury members themselves of liberty (and, in many cases, income or education) for however long the trial lasts.

2: ... to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor...

Again, on the face of it, this one also seems like a good deal. But what does "compulsory process" actually mean? Well, it means that in addition to depriving innocent people of liberty by forcing them to sit in a jury box for several months, accused criminals can also deprive people of their liberty by claiming to the court that said people are important witnesses to the defense. And, frankly, if some dime-bagger drops my name to the PD, there's not much I can do about it. Despite being innocent and having no connection whatsoever to any criminal activity, I can be forced to testify against my will, and sent to jail if I refuse.

This whole due process thing is starting to suck, at least for the people involved.

Anyway...

3: ... and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

... and boom goes the dynamite.

Time and time again, the Supremes have interpreted this one squarely in favor of the accused. And starting in the early 20th century, they've gone so far as to hold that if you can't afford to pay for counsel, then We The People will be forced to pay for a lawyer for you. At first, this applied only to capital crimes, but over time it's been extended more and more broadly, to the point where today, criminals are entitled to counsel at my expense for even the most minor offenses. And, ok, so nobody likes a Public Defender, but it's not like they work for free.

So, how do you guys feel about Due Process? Should an accused criminal have the right to be tried by a jury consisting of people who are there against their will, using witnesses who are basically kidnapped out of the general population, and with the representation of a lawyer who, again, I am being forced to pay for?

Sounds to me like if "rights" consist only of things that nobody else has to be deprived of property of liberty to provide, then the 6th Amendment needs to be repealed and we can go back to good ole' fashioned lynch mobs.

I have a right to Healthcare. I can pay for it whenever and wherever I like for whatever legal healthcare I need and nobody has a right to tell me I can't.

How about the scenario where another has that same right to healthcare you describe, but loses it since they cannot pay for it whenever and for whatever they like? Somebody has the right to tell them they can't. There are many people in this situation and at no fault of their own. This person could even be you. Lets say you stumble across a nasty disease and your insurance caps out, leaving the burden to pay (and it's very possible you can't) on you. How do we guarantee the same "right" here? Does it end due to insurance company profit margins?

There are some who are in that situation and it is completely a fault of their own. That is harder to wholly and fairly address, so let's focus on the above.

'round these parts, folks like to talk about due process of law. We've had threads about civil forfeiture, gun control, police homicides, no-fly lists, and all sorts of other extra-judicial affairs. And every time, a certain (and predictable) set of folks chime in saying "You can't do that without due process!"

1. yes, be scared. You're being judges by idiots too stupid to get out of jury duty.
2. without this, it would be just like grand juries -- one sided story only.
3. EVERYONE deserves a defense against the State. EVERYONE. The courts were FORCED to go so far, because the State is evil and fucked Americans in such a systematic fashion that a change was nessecary. There are still groups today freeing innocent men from overzealous prosecutors and partial judges.

So, how do you guys feel about Due Process? Should thean accused criminal have the right to be tried by a jury consisting of people who are there against their will, using witnesses who are basically kidnapped out of the general population, and with the representation of a lawyer who, again, I am being forced to pay for?

FTFY

But to answer the question directly, yes... It's the fundamental bedrock of our criminal justice system.

Location: Chicago (Over two miles from Wrigley Field. Fuck the Cubs. Fuck them in their smarmy goat-hole.)

Posts: 26,317

Total Cats: 1,915

Quote:

Originally Posted by bahurd

But to answer the question directly, yes... It's the fundamental bedrock of our criminal justice system.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Braineack

3. EVERYONE deserves a defense against the State. EVERYONE. The courts were FORCED to go so far, because the State is evil and fucked Americans in such a systematic fashion that a change was nessecary. There are still groups today freeing innocent men from overzealous prosecutors and partial judges.

So you'd both agree then that, at a fundamental level, it's not merely acceptable but actually necessary for the state to routinely deprive a large number of people of a small amount of liberty (and money), in order to provide a certain benefit to a well-defined small group of people. Correct?

And, ok, so nobody likes a Public Defender, but it's not like they work for free.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Braineack

3. EVERYONE deserves a defense against the State. EVERYONE. The courts were FORCED to go so far, because the State is evil and fucked Americans in such a systematic fashion that a change was nessecary. There are still groups today freeing innocent men from overzealous prosecutors and partial judges.

They almost do work for free. They're so overworked and overextended that you almost end up with losing the very defense you're being provided. This gets dangerously close to the scenario Brain described where you get shafted by the state since your defense is so poor.

So you'd both agree then that, at a fundamental level, it's not merely acceptable but actually necessary for the state to routinely deprive a large number of people of a small amount of liberty (and money), in order to provide a certain benefit to a well-defined small group of people. Correct?

No, on a fundamental level, it's necessary because it provides a check against abuse of government power, not a provision of goods and services or a limitation of individual liberty.

The way I see it, in regards to the OP, we have been granted the right to bear arms, we have also been afforded the right to purchase health insurance. Neither of them are given to us for free, the biggest difference is we are fined should we not provide ourselves with "optional" healthcare.

So you'd both agree then that, at a fundamental level, it's not merely acceptable but actually necessary for the state to routinely deprive a large number of people of a small amount of liberty (and money), in order to provide a certain benefit to a well-defined small group of people. Correct?

Yes.

I've lived in multiple states and for some reason my name gets picked fairly often. I've only requested a later date twice because of a conflict. Never tried to get off. Been on a jury multiple times.